Clas Olander is lecturer at the Department of Education, University of Gothenburg.

Drawing on a background in
teaching at several levels in public schools his current interest is the cross section of practice and theory; especially
students use of language when making meaning of school science.

CLAS OLANDER

Department of Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

clas.olander@gu.se

Teaching biological evolution - internal and

external evaluation of learning outcomes
Abstract

This paper reports from a study where teachers and researchers collaborate on designing and validating topic-oriented teaching-learning sequences. In an iterative process, data about learning and
teaching biological evolution are generated through continuous cycles of design, teaching, evaluation,
and redesign. The study involved 180 Swedish students aged 11 16, and the overall learning aim was
that the students should be able to use the theory of evolution as a tool when explaining the development of life on earth. The aim of this paper is to validate the students learning outcome, estimated as
appropriation of scientific ways of reasoning in written answers. The students answers of questions
are analysed before and after interventions (internal evaluation), and compared with the answers
from a national sample (external evaluation). The students in the experimental group did develop
their reasoning, and they attained the aim, to a greater extent than a national sample.

Introduction

Biological evolution is an area in the science curriculum that has been identified as challenging
and in which traditional teaching often fails, when it comes to students lasting conceptual understanding (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007; Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Bizzo, 1994; Kampourakis &
Zogza, 2008; Sandoval & Millwood, 2005; Shtulman, 2006; Thomas, 2000; Wallin, 2004). Of the
few intervention studies that show effective learning, some use activities among peers that focus
reasoning; for example, paired problem-solving (Jensen & Finley, 1996), peer group discussions
about different explanations (Jimnez- Aleixandre, 1992; Wallin, 2004), and dialectical argumentation (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007). However, the successful examples of evidence-based teaching
do not often reach practice, and this dividing line between research and practice is an issue that
concerns governments as well as communities of educational research (Millar, Leach, Osborne &
Ratcliffe, 2006).
The notion of design-based research is one strategy to bridge the supposed gap between research in science education and practice. In the US, design research is discussed in thematic issues
of Educational Researcher (Kelly, 2003), the Journal of the Learning Sciences (Barab & Squire,
2004), and Educational Psychologist (Sandoval & Bell, 2004). In Europe, design research has
been presented in a thematic issue of the International Journal of Science Education (Meheut &
Psillos, 2004). Several research groups work in line with this approach using different headings, for
example, development research (Linjse, 1995), educational reconstruction (Kattmann, Duit &

5(2), 2009

[171]

Clas Olander
Gropengieer, 1998), didactical transposition (Tiberghien, 2000), teaching-learning sequences
(Leach & Scott, 2002), learning studies (Lo, Marton, Pang & Pong, 2004), design-based research (Design-based research collective, 2003) , and pragmatic approach to design-based research (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006). Albeit the differences among the approaches, they share, at least,
two commonalities (Lindwall, 2008). They aim at doing real work in practical educational settings
and the working process includes separable parts of design, enactment, analysis and redesign
(ibid, p. 26). Sandoval and Bell (2004) summarize the design-based approach claiming that it is
theoretically framed empirical research of learning and teaching based on particular designs for
instruction (ibid, pp. 199-200).
The approach in the study presented in this paper share the mutual characteristics that are pointed out by Sandoval and Bell (2004) and Lindwall (2008). In an iterative process, empirical data
about learning and teaching biological evolution is generated through continuous cycles of design, teaching, evaluation, and redesign. This is done as part of a developmental project, labelled
design and validation of topic-oriented teaching-learning sequences (Andersson, Bach, Hagman,
Olander & Wallin, 2005) where teachers and researchers collaborate. The aim of this paper is to
describe the process of designing a teaching-learning sequence and validating versus the students
learning outcome.

Explaining biological change

In science classes, students are often asked to explain phenomena and are then expected to use
a causal explanation. This is not a self-evident task. First of all, students have to distinguish descriptions from explanations. Ogborn, Kress, Martins and McGillicuddy (1996) conclude that
describing and labelling is common in science classrooms, because it provides material for explanations. The entities which are to be used in explanations have to be talked into existence for
students (ibid, p. 14). When explaining biological phenomena, students often use spontaneous
and situated explanations. These explanations could be anthropomorphic, attributing human characteristics to non-human organisms, or teleological, where events have a goal, purpose, or even
a design (Zohar & Ginossar, 1998; Kattmann, 2008). According to Keleman (1999), reasoning in
a teleological way is common, in the sense that we frequently ask why? and whats that for?
when confronted with a biological issue. For example, when we see the webbed foot of the mallard
we spontaneously explain that the mallard have this foot in order to swim.
Causality in biology could be regarded as either proximate or ultimate according to Mayr (1961)
or, as Ariew (2003) rephrased it, proximate or evolutionary explanations. Answers to questions
that start with what is the cause deals with either short-term (proximate) or long-term (evolutionary/ultimate) perspectives. Responses with short time scales are due to immediate previous
events and they are appropriate in physiology and medicine, while evolutionary (ultimate) explanations involve longer time, several generations, and selection. Students often dont distinguish
proximate from evolutionary explanations, or dont recognise what kind of time perspective their
answer is supposed to deal with. Abrams, Southerland and Cummins (2001) developed the idea
that there are both proximate and ultimate answers to how and why questions. Ariew (2003)
suggests that answers to questions about how should refer to proximate causes; while towards
why-questions evolutionary explanations are more fruitful.

Aim and research focus

Evaluation of interventions in school could be either internal or external. An example of internal evaluation is comparisons of pre- and post-tests within the experimental group. In external
evaluation the aim is to compare with other teaching practices, for example experimental versus control groups. Irrespective of the approach, evaluation is performed in relation to specific
goals. The goals of the Swedish compulsory school are evaluated by the Swedish National Agency
who initiated a national evaluation in 2003 with the aim of providing an overall picture of goal
[172]

5(2), 2009

Teaching biological evolution

attainment in the compulsory school, by subject and from an overall perspective (National Agency
of Education, 2004, p. 8). In the same document the different actors, the state and the individual
teacher, responsibilities are formulated as:
The structure of the syllabuses reflects the division of responsibility between the state and the
professionals in the school. By means of setting up the goals, as well as the results to be expected, the state imposes demands on the quality and equivalence of the education. How the
goals are to be attained, namely choice of content and method, is determined by the teacher
(ibid, p.16).
The Swedish grade 1 9 curriculum for compulsory school, states that the school in its teaching
of biology should aim to ensure [] that pupils develop their knowledge of the conditions and development of life and are able to see themselves and other forms of life from an evolutionary perspective (National Agency of Education, 2000). In the teaching-learning sequence developed in
the present study, this national aim was interpreted into a specified learning goal, namely that the
students should be able to use the theory of evolution as a tool when explaining the development
of life on earth. In this context it is crucial if a model/ theory/concept are seen as goal (product) or
means (process). To learn the theory of evolution could be a goal to attain, but then you open up
for the possibility to learn more or less by heart; students repeat the right words. A model/theory/
concept could also be put into use as means or theoretical lever in the process of sense-making.
It was in this latter way we regarded the theory of evolution in this teaching intervention, hence
expressed as theory as a tool.
The specific research focus in this paper is to asses the teaching-learning sequence, with respect to
students learning outcome. Data are generated through students written answers to a pre-test and
a delayed post-test (three months after teaching), and a comparison is made with the answers from
a comparable national sample. Doing this includes a validation of the test instrument in itself.

Methodology

Sample and project design

The intervention study could be described as a cyclic knowledge-building process, in which both
teachers and researchers contribute. After an announcement-letter to schools, four teachers volunteered to participate. The teachers were all qualified to teach biology at this school level; beside
that, they represent various teaching experience, gender, and age. The students were all part of
the Swedish compulsory school system and came from different environments; one school was
situated in the centre of town, two in multicultural suburbs, and one a bit outside town but still
at commuting distance. All four teachers taught the sequence twice with different groups during
one school year (Figure 1). This means that about 180 students in eight groups, 11 16 years old,
were involved (these groups are henceforth referred to as the experimental group). For the sake
of comparison the experimental group is sometimes discussed as two groups, divided according to
the age of the students.
During the first design phase, teachers and researcher had four meetings where we made a didactical analysis of the content and formulated a teaching strategy. This analysis was grounded
in literature and our own teaching experience, and both informed our planning of the teaching
intervention. Early in this period the teachers gave some written questions about evolution to
their own students, which they knew had participated in teaching about evolution. When we later
discussed the students answers, the teachers were at first dumbfounded about, how on earth
could my students write like this. However, soon we started a rewarding conversation about
reasons for students reasoning. Retrospectively, this is seen as a turning point. From now on the
teachers engagement and ownership of the process increased and they made increasingly valuable
contributions.

5(2), 2009

[173]

Clas Olander
May/Aug/Sep/Oct

Nov/Dec

January

Feb/March

May/June

Design meetings

Teaching 1

Evaluation 1
/ new design

Teaching 2

Evaluation 2

Figure 1. Working process during the two cycles.

The work reported in this paper emanates from a developmental project, in which both teachers
and researchers contributed. However, all involved in a project like this do not contribute equally
throughout the process. Earlier in this paper the process is described as design, teaching, evaluation, and redesign; these phases are interlinked but the different actors the teachers and
researchers contribution varies. In the design phase the researchers where more active in the
beginning, for example in choosing the literature and preparing the diagnostic instrument. The
result of the design phase (the learning goal and the teaching strategy) was achieved through collaborative work and could be regarded as guidelines for the intended teaching. The teaching was
solely the teachers responsibility, but in evaluations and redesign both teachers and researchers
were involved.

Formulating the learning goal

As an overall learning goal, we decided that students should be able to use the theory of evolution
by means of natural selection as a tool when explaining the development of life on earth. It was a
conscious decision, mainly due to time limits and the age of the students, not to include, for example, neutral evolution, or drift, and to restrict teaching to adaptive evolution (natural selection).
One peculiarity with the theory of evolution, as with all theories, is that it is construed by different
parts. Following advice from, among others, Bishop and Anderson (1990), and Wallin (2004), we
decided to separate the explanation of evolution into two parts when staging the scientific story of
evolution. The first process to be dealt with was the origin of variation, which is a random process,
mainly due to mutation and recombination. Selection, which is the second part, is not a random
process, but an effect of the variation meeting the environment. Selection is often perceived as differences in survival and we wanted it to (also) include different reproduction rates.
This means that we reformulated the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution (Stearns & Hoekstra, 2000) to school science settings. In Sweden, it is the responsibility of the teachers to attain
these kinds of reformulations as well as the formulation of specific learning goals. The aim of this
paper is to evaluate the students attainment of the learning goal, which is summarised as follows:
after the teaching intervention the students should be able to explain the evolution of life on earth
using the meaning of the terms heredity, variation, and selection.

Formulating a teaching strategy

One of the mutual conclusions from the literature about students reasoning about evolution (see
the references in the introduction) is that students often explain biological change referring to
terms like need, wish, and/or effort. These terms along with terms that are scientifically central
(we labelled them key terms), namely heredity, variation, and selection were to be elaborated and
made meaning of in the teaching intervention. The intended strategy for the teaching was to present the theory of evolution as a scientific story and to engage students in different communicative
settings; a meaning making process in relation to the key terms.
In that respect we reconsidered the staging of whole class and peer group discussions. In whole
class discussion this meant that the ambition was to generally replace the frequent triadic communicative pattern of I-R-E with I-R-F-R-F-R- (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). The triadic pattern:
Initiation (teachers question) Response (student) Evaluation (teacher) halts the conversation
[174]

5(2), 2009

Teaching biological evolution

and reduces the possibilities of true dialogue. If the teacher instead gives a feedback (F), the chance
that the student will offer a new and elaborated response increases. If this is followed by another
feedback, there is real communication going on. The teacher indicates by this that the students
contributions are valuable and worth attention.
Peer group discussions have successfully been used by Jimnez-Aleixandre (1992) in a teaching
intervention about biological evolution. In order to link talks in peer groups and whole class we
decided to try what Hoel (1996) calls structured talks, which often emanate from a teacher initiated question or claim. Students then start with a short individual pondering; suggestively a minute
or three, and preferably including some short writing. Then groups are formed where the issue is
elaborated, and after some minutes the teacher enquires public response from the groups. This
strategy give students the opportunity to ponder for themselves, test their opinions with others,
and thus be better prepared for a public utterance in front of the whole class.
We agreed on a first set of student activities that would point to the use of key terms and the
theory of evolution as a two-part process. On the basis of this, the teachers could plan their own
teaching, guided by local circumstances, for example in relation to their students age and previous
experience. The scope of this article does not admit a close description of different activities, but
a few that were supposed to contribute to the scientific story of two separate processes will be
discussed.
We wanted to establish the notion of the existing variation in all populations. Our assumption was
that this in a colloquial manner was frequently articulated as everybody is unique. We wanted to
extend this articulation to include all populations and start a discussion about the origin of these
differences, and its consequences for future generations. One of the activities that were developed
during the first teaching was a game of recognition, using flowers, shells, leafs, peas, seeds etc.
The description that follows concerns an activity in which dry chick peas were used.
Every student got a dry chick pea, and their assignment was to learn to recognise it without
making any marks or the like on the pea. Then students gathered in groups of three/four, mingled
their chick peas and tried to pick out their own. Nearly always this succeeded, and bigger and bigger groups were formed, and mostly students managed to recognise their own pea among the
others. Many students started to care for their own peas, gave them names, wanted to take the
peas home etc. Apart from this emotional aspect of the activity, the discoveries that even dry chick
peas are different were striking to the students. This activity opened up for a teacher led structured
talk concerning the origin of the differences among chick peas. The summary afterwards usually
brought up both environmental and genetic reasons for the differences of the peas. The teacher
could chose to pick up, or leave as a cliff-hanger, the question of which of the reasons (genetic
or environmental) would be important for future pea-kids.
Another suggested activity was to make use of the students answers to the pre-test questions. The
answers should be made anonymous and handed out to groups as a basis for discussion. With this
strategy individual students would not have to defend their own writing, if they at all remembered it; instead they are free to pick, from the pool of answers, what they now discern as a good
explanation. This way of making use of students own articulated explanations could be a way of
facilitating productive talk, and sharing of ideas.

Selection of items and mode of comparisons

When the Swedish National Agency for Education performed the national evaluation in 2003,
a random national sample of students in grade 9 was given written questions. The evaluation
was performed in the latter part of the spring, approximately three months before the end of the
students compulsory schooling. In this study the national sample is regarded as control group

5(2), 2009

[175]

Clas Olander
in relation to the experimental group, which is an approach previously used by Bach (2001). In
the national evaluation of science 2003 (National Agency of Education, 2004), the students were
given 37 tasks to solve (divided into three tests), and in the Biology part, three tasks dealt with evolution (one open question and one multiple choice question accompanied with a request to justify
their choice). These three tasks were also given to the experimental group, but only at the delayed
post-test. In that way they were unfamiliar to the students and could serve as a point of comparison with the national sample. However, the students ambition to answer is probably lower in the
national sample, for example, there are around 50 % who dont answer the open-ended tasks
about evolution compared to less than 10 % in the experimental group. It should be noted that it
is not missing values; the students had the opportunity to answer, but preferred not to write anything, or wrote something irrelevant. Furthermore, there is a possibility that some students in the
national sample not yet had any teaching about evolution; when the national evaluation was made
there were still three months left of the term, and Zetterqvist (1998) conclude that many teachers
in Sweden choose to teach evolution late in school year nine.
With the differences in answering rates in mind, a conversion of the results was made in order to
get a more fair comparison; especially not overrating the results of the experimental group. The
percentages presented in findings are recalculated as proportions of students answering the actual
question, and the statistical comparisons of potential differences between groups are calculated
with the 2-method.
The intercoder reliability was checked by giving the answers and category headings to two educational scientists who where familiar with the content area. They independently categorised answers; at first the three of us agreed in 77 % of the cases, and after a discussion about interpretation
we reached 90 % agreement.

Analysing answers about the evolution of a new trait

Here focus in analysis is a question that was first used by Bishop and Anderson (1990):
Cheetahs are able to run fast, around 100 km/h when chasing prey. How would a biologist
explain how the ability to run fast evolved in cheetahs, assuming their ancestors could only
run 30 km/h?
Students written answers were grouped in order to reflect qualitatively different ways of reasoning. The system of categories that emerged had students actual wording in the foreground but
was influenced by previous educational research about students ideas and ways of arguing as well
as scientific views of the specific area. The students answers to the cheetah-problem are categorised as follows, with examples from the students answers in italics.
a) The answer describes, but do not explain: They developed and got longer legs, and they became more vigorous.
b) The answer explains in a teleological way; mainly with words like need, had to, strive: Cheetahs have to run fast in order to catch their prey.
c) The answer explains only with some key terms: A biologist would explain like this; it occurred
mutations in the genes of the cheetah, which made it run faster.
d) The answer explains in terms of natural selection: When one cheetah was born it had, for
example longer legs, which made it run faster and therefore gets more food, survive longer and
then spread its genes.
e) No answer or irrelevant answer, or repeats the question: dont know etc.
The answers in the category a) describe change, either changes in the environment or the anatomical changes an animal might have gone through when evolving the actual trait. Here it is also
a matter of knowing what the acceptable school-scientific vocabulary is, especially the distinction
between a description (category a) and an explanation (which is the basis for category b, c, and
[176]

5(2), 2009

Teaching biological evolution

d). Teleological or anthropomorphic explanations are put together in category b), and here the
answers focus purpose (for example in order to). The explanations in category c) and d) rely on
the sense that students make of the key terms heredity, variation, and selection. Explanations in
category c) mainly deal with proximate causes and only make use of some of the key terms, often
interspersed with some scientific terms (mostly genetic words). It is a mix where students growing understanding and mimicking of the scientific language is used when formulating answers.
Natural selection is the basis of the fourth category (d), but in various steps, from only mentioning
differential survival to differential reproduction and further to accumulation of a trait/gene.

Analysing answers about the origin of a new trait

These questions (multiple choice and an open ended request for justification) dealt with the origin
of a new hereditary trait:
In the future, it is most likely that entirely new hereditary traits will develop among living
organisms traits that never existed before. What is the origin of an entirely new hereditary
trait? Choose the statement that you consider is the best. Justify your choice.
The individuals need of the trait
Random changes in the genes
The species pursue to develop
In nature balance is pursued
The question is similar to a version from Wallin, Hagman and Olander (2001); however in this
study the item was given both as a multiple-choice question, and accompanied with a request to
give a reason for the choice. The alternative that is most in line with the scientific explanation
is Random changes in the genes. A system of categories was generated in relation to the open
ended task of justification (see Table 3 for more details). Two main categories was discerned, one
type dealt with descriptions or explanations of development in general, and the other was based on
ultimate causes of new traits. The latter type of answer refers more thoroughly to the heredity part
of the task. The first type of answers used words like need, wish and/or adaptation, often referring
to individual organisms.

Findings

Experimental group versus national sample; evolution of a trait

The trait mentioned in the headline is the cheetahs ability to run fast. As mentioned before, a
recalculation of all groups was made, in order not to overestimate the results of the experimental
group. The number of students that are compared then decreases; in the experimental group grades 5 7 from 80 to 73, which means that 7 students didnt answer. In the same way, answers from
the experimental group grade 9 alter from 83 to 82, and the national sample from 620 to 335.

Table 1. Students post-test explanations of how cheetahs ability to run fast has evolved.
All differences between groups are significant (p < 0,01).

Category of student response

a) describes but do not explain

Experimental group
Grade 5 7 n
Grade 9
= 73
n = 82
14 %

9%

b) explains in a teleological way

49 %

25 %

d) explains in terms of natural selection

15 %

50 %

c) explains only with some key terms

5(2), 2009

21 %

16 %

National sample
Grade 9
n = 335
38 %
38 %
10 %
14 %

[177]

Clas Olander
In the grade 9 experimental group, half of the students answered in terms of natural selection.
In the Swedish national evaluation, 14 % answered in a similar way. The experimental groups in
grades 5-7 gave answers in the category natural selection with an average of 15 % (see Table1).
In the national sample, 76 % of the students who gave answers use a type of reasoning that is not
in line with the scientific view. In the experimental group of the same age, the proportion of nonscientific answers is 34 %. Even the younger students, in grade 5 7, answer in a more scientific
way than grade 9 students in the national sample.

Experimental group versus national sample: origin of a new trait

The proportion of no answer in the multiple-choice question (Table 2) is the same in all groups.
The alternative most in line with the scientific view is Random changes in the genes. This was
also the alternative that was chosen most frequently in all groups, but the experimental group (all
ages) chose the correct answer significantly more often than the students in the national sample.
Table 2. Students post-test choice of the origin of a new trait. The difference between the national
sample and the experimental grade 9 is significant (p < 0,01); no significant differences between
the other groups.

Multiple choice alternative

Experimental group

National sample

Grade 5 7
n = 80

Grade 9
n = 83

Grade 9
n = 620

1) The individuals need of the trait

29 %

27 %

24 %

2) Random changes in the genes

45 %

57 %

31 %

3) The species pursue to develop

13 %

11 %

30 %

4) In nature balance is pursued

8%

0%

8%

No answer

6%

6%

6%

The students written statements when asked to justify their choice of alternatives are shown in
Table 3. Note that a recalculation of answers from all groups has been made; in the same way as
for the cheetah-question. The percentage of students who explained the origin of the new trait
(category b in Table 3) differs from the percentage of students who correctly answered the multiple
choice item (alternative 2 in Table 2). In experimental group 5 7 the numbers decrease, mainly
because many of the students did not write any justification. On the other hand, the percentage
rates for the groups in grade 9 are higher when students motivate their choice. This increase is due
to the fact that some students wrote a justification in line with a scientific view, despite choosing
an alternative other than number two in the multiple-choice item. For example the answer that
one student writes in spite of choosing alternative 1 need:
If for example there is a quick and a slow zebra in a flock, the quick zebra will survive if a lion
chases it. Then the genes of the quick zebra will be passed to a new generation. Eventually
there will be more and more quick zebras because it helps them when they are threatened.
This student chooses alternative 1 need, but writes a justification that is rather well in line with
the scientific view of natural selection.
It is noteworthy that there is only a slight difference between the answers from the national sample
and the experimental group in grade 5 7; they give similar answers in spite of the age difference.
The experimental group in grade 9 writes answers more in line with current views in science with
a greater frequency (a difference with 27 percentage points compared with the national sample).

[178]

5(2), 2009

Teaching biological evolution

Table 3. Students post-test justifications of the origin of a new trait. Differences are significant
(p < 0,01) between the national sample and the experimental grade 9 and between experimental
groups; no significant difference between national sample and experimental grade 5-7. Note that
the main categories (a, b and c) are printed in bold.

Category of
student response

Example of response

Experimental
group

National
sample

Grade 5 - 7
n = 59

Grade 9
n = 82

a) Explains or describes the development, but not the origin

of a new trait
a1) describes
At first humans were apes (animals) and
development
then in the course of time we
have developed to become humans.

65 %

38 %

59 %

24 %

11 %

10 %

22 %

18 %

15 %

a3) focuses on
wish/strive as
rationale

You develop things that you have a great

need of in order to survive.

Everybody wants to develop and become

better. Then maybe you develop if you
try.

14 %

5%

21 %

a4) focuses on
adaptation as
rationale

Animals adapt to the environment you/

they live in. Something like the birds on
Galapagos.

5%

4%

13 %

b) Explains the origin of a new trait

35 %

63 %

36 %

b1) explains how

changes in gene
pool originate

Sometimes mutations happen in the

genes, the DNA. In that way new traits
originate.

27 %

31 %

31 %

b2) specifies also

mechanism of
natural selection

If an animal happens to get a random

change, which gives that individual an
advantage, it makes it live longer and it
is able to spread its genes, which means
that more and more individuals get that
trait.
E.g. a mole that lives on worms has to
dig in soil; it was therefore made with
feet that are easy to dig with.

8%

32 %

5%

0%

0%

5%

a2) focuses on
need as rationale

c) Other

Grade 9
n = 335

Experimental group versus national sample: consistency, aggregated findings

Presented here are the three questions, which were identically formulated and analysed for the
national sample and the grade nine experimental group. Note that a recalculation of answers from
both groups has been made in order to achieve fairer comparisons. A rough division into two parts
of every question is made: answers in line or not in line with the theory of evolution. In line with
theory are answers from Table 1 in category c and d, from Table 2 alternative 2, and from Table
3 category b. These answers have been aggregated as shown in Table 4. The experimental groups
answers are significantly more in line with the theory of evolution than those of the national sample.

5(2), 2009

[179]

Clas Olander
Table 4. Consistency among three written answers; national sample and grade nine experimental
group. Differences between the groups are significant (p < 0,01).

National sample
Experimental group

No answer
in line with theory
59 %
16 %

One or two answers

in line with theory

Three answers
in line with theory

32 %
41 %

9%
43 %

Experimental group before and after teaching: evolution of a trait

In the pre-test, the students were asked to explain how a trait had evolved:
Seals can remain underwater without breathing for nearly 45 minutes as they hunt for fish.
How would a biologist explain how the ability to not breathe for long periods of time has
evolved, assuming their ancestors could stay underwater for just a couple of minutes? (Settlage, 1994)
Answers to the seal-question were compared to the answers given at the post-test about the evolution of a trait in cheetahs. There may be a problem of comparison when you change the question.
Students have different experience and knowledge about the subject in each question, in this case
seals and cheetahs. However, the conclusion from pilot studies was that the change of species had
little influence as long as you kept a typical trait of the species in question as invariant. The advantage of changing, for example by presenting a new question, would make the comparison with the
national sample fairer, since the cheetah-question would be a novel problem to both groups.
The students did improve their explanations in terms of using more scientific language (see Table
5). This occurred more with the grade 9 students than with the younger ones. There are few differences between grades 5-7 and grade 9 concerning the pre-test results and the percentages are
nearly the same for the categories c and d, which are the categories with at least some key terms.
Table 5. Students explanations of how a trait evolved: findings within the experimental group.
Differences between both groups pre- and post-test results are significant (p < 0,01); no significant
differences between the groups pre-test results.

Grade 5-7

Grade 9

Pre-test
n = 81

Post-test
n = 80

Pre-test
n = 87

Post-test
n = 83

b) explains in a teleological way

38 %

45 %

46 %

25 %

c) explains only with some key terms

4%

19 %

5%

16 %

d) explains in terms of natural selection

1%

14 %

2%

49 %

e) not answered

6%

9%

10 %

1%

f) other

7%

1%

1%

0%

Category of student response

a) describes but do not explain

43 %

12 %

36 %

8%

Discussion

In summary, this studys findings about learning outcomes show that students, who participated
in the teaching intervention, did improve their answers to written questions. Students in the experimental group answered significantly more in line with set learning goals than a national sample.
Within the experimental group, students answers were significantly more in line with goals three
months after teaching than before. Both these forms of evaluation, external and internal, are dependent of how the goals are interpreted and the quality of the assessment instrument. The fact
[180]

5(2), 2009

Teaching biological evolution

that students do improve indicates that the questions are in alignment with the goals and that the
teaching enhances this improvement. This article has described and argued the steps taken from
national aims to explicit learning goals and further to the choice of test questions. The questions
used in this study have the quality to offer the students latitude, and possibility to improve the
quality of reasoning, when answering them.
When researchers construct specific questions that are to be used for assessing conceptual learning, the context, and especially the change of context, is important to be aware of. Assessments
try to find signs of learning and the students ability to use similar reasoning in different contexts
is such a sign. In this study the specie varied, for example seals and cheetahs, while the evolution
of a typical trait of that specie was kept as invariant, namely the ability of prolonged diving, and
fast running, respectively. A similar shift in what is variant/invariant is made by Asterhan and
Schwarz (2007), who also found that the suggested approach did not alter the questions validity.
However, my point is that when constructing context shifts it is important to keep track of what is
invariant and what is not. Another methodological reason for change of context was to get a more
fair comparison between the experimental and the national sample. In the experimental design
the question about cheetahs was not introduced until the delayed post test. The assumption was
that by this the probability increases that at least the context would be equally new to both the
experimental and the national sample.
Studies about teaching interventions often report improved learning outcomes estimated with
external evaluations. Methodologically, external evaluations in educational settings are hard to
perform. The usual procedure with control groups, which gets ordinary teaching, has (far too)
many factors that are difficult to keep invariant (Bach, 2001; Juuti & Lavonen, 2006; Millar,
Leach, Osborne & Ratcliffe, 2006). For example, what is ordinary teaching and what constitutes a
comparable group of students; not to mention the teachers influence, even if it is the same teacher
in both groups. The external evaluation in this study was framed in relation to a national evaluation in Sweden. Partly this frame was facilitated since the researchers that performed the national
evaluation also took part in the intervention study. This connection increases the reliability, when
sorting students written answers in different categories.
The purpose of the introduced systems of categories was to reflect different qualities in reasoning.
In this way it is a specification of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) in relation to
explaining different phenomena, thus pointing at what is likely to be the students reasoning. Apart
from being a concrete analytical tool when assessing written answers, such as the ones presented
in this paper, the systems of categories can inform the planning of teaching; especially when it comes to teaching about the nature of science (NOS), and what is regarded as appropriate answers
in science classrooms. The system of categories points at areas where teaching activities have to be
designed. Such activities are, for example, those which elaborate differences between descriptions
and explanations in science, which is a general issue for all science subjects. Two other distinctions
in the systems of categories are more specific when it comes to explaining biology. Explanations
could be either teleological or causal, and they could deal with proximate or ultimate causation.
All these three considerations (description/explanation, teleology/causality, and proximate/ultimate) need some kind of activity and/or talk, if the quality of students reasoning is to improve.
Without explicit attention, these distinctions are not likely to be noticed by the majority of students. A straight forward suggestion is to let students answer a question, make answers anonymous
and list them all; then let students do the categorisation with the help of the system of categories.
The systems of categories also have the potential of serving as facilitator when teachers perform
assessment for learning (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall & Wiliam, 2003). An example is when the
teachers lead whole class discussions and have to give appropriate feedback that makes progress in
the scientific story. All oral contributions from the students are to be taken seriously. However, the
teacher should be sensitive to comments that touch upon a new step in the system of categories.

5(2), 2009

[181]

Clas Olander
For instance, if suggestions about how selection works come up, it could be wise to ask students
to elaborate about the outcome of different survival rates and reproductions rates. The didactical
analysis hypothesises that the aspect of existing variation is essential to discern; thus feedback
from the teacher about variation should be prominent. Then feedback comments have the potential of turning into real feed forward comments.
Concerning the actual teaching practice of evolution of life in Swedish compulsory schools, the
national evaluation is a point of reference. Two striking features in the evaluation were the low
attainment of national goals and the large proportion of students who chose not to answer. The
researchers who wrote the report (National Agency of Education, 2004) speculate that although
the curriculum since 1994 has emphasised evolution, seemingly teaching practice does not. This
conclusion is supported by the present study since students, irrespective of their age, gave similar
answers in the pre-test. If this is a reflection of current teaching practice, it shows few signs of the
impact of previous teaching of evolution.
In the present study the ambition was to alter teaching practice in especially two ways. Firstly, to
unfold the scientific story by using the key terms heredity, variation, and selection. These terms
were supposed to be treated both separately and as part of a coherent theory. Secondly, to give
plenty of opportunities for students to engage in productive talk using key terms as tools for reasoning. It would be interesting to explore the relationship between teaching approach and learning
outcome. Further analysis of communication patterns in the actual classrooms could be an important way of deepening the understanding.
This study has contributed with a suggestion for a change of practice regarding teaching evolution, and it is shown that the majority of students made considerable improvements towards the
set learning goals of the project. But after teaching, there is still one of six students (16 %) in the
experimental group grade 9, who does not answer in line with the set learning goals. This is estimated by written answers three months after teaching. There are several possible reasons for why
students do not answer as expected. Many of these reasons are common to all assessments that are
free of the external motivation of grading. Students possibly articulate a doubt about the scientific
account or simply do not make the effort of answering. However, this study is part of an iterative
design based research effort, where continuous improvements in the design are to be made if more
(all) students should reach the set learning goals. The change of practice has to be continued.

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper was funded by the Swedish Research Council (VR). When
preparing the paper I had valuable discussions with Anita Wallin, Ann Zetterqvist, Bjrn Andersson, Frank Bach and ke Ingerman; and I also acknowledge the insightful comments from two
anonymous reviewers.

References

Abrams, E., Southerland, S., & Cummins, C. (2001). The hows and whys of biological change:
how learners neglect physical mechanism in their search for meaning. International Journal
of Science Education, 23(12), 1271-1281.
Andersson, B., Bach, F., Hagman, M., Olander, C., & Wallin, A. (2005). Discussing a research programme for the improvement of science teaching. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong &
H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 221-230). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Ariew, A. (2003). Ernst Mayrs ultimate/proximate distinction reconsidered and reconstructed.
Biology and Philosophy, 18, 553-565.

[182]

5(2), 2009

Teaching biological evolution

Asterhan, S., & Schwarz, B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on
concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626-639.
Bach, F. (2001). Om ljuset i tillvaron, ett undervisningsexperiment inom optik. Gteborg studies
in educational sciences 162. Gteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. English summary
retrieved June 28, 2009, from http://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/handle/2077/10514
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Bishop, B., & Anderson, C. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415-427.
Bizzo, N. (1994). From down house landlord to Brazilian high school students: what has happened to evolutionary knowledge on the way? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5),
537-556.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning putting it into practice. Open University Press
The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for
educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Hoel, T. L. (1996). Kjnn, interaksjon og elevsamarbeid. Nordisk Pedagogik, 1(16), 31-41.
Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in students understanding of evolution resulting
from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
33(8), 879-900.
Juuti, K. & Lavonen, J. (2006). Design-based research in science education: one step towards methodology. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 4, 54-68.
Jimnez-Aleixandre, M.P. (1992). Thinking about theories or thinking with theories?: A classroom
study with natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 51-61.
Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies
and adaptations. Science & Education, 17, 27-47.
Kattmann, U. (2008). Learning biology by means of anthropomorphic conceptions? In M. Hammann, M. Reiss, C. Boulter & S. Tunnicliffe (Eds.), Biology in Context, Learning and teaching
for the twenty-first century. (pp. 7-17). Institute of Education, London.
Kattmann, U., Duit, R., & Gropengieer, H. (1998). The model of educational reconstruction.
Bringing together issues of scientific clarification and students conceptions. In H. Bayrhuber
& F. Brinkman (Eds.), What Why How? Research in Didaktik of Biology (pp. 253-262).
ERIDOB, Kiel: IPN.
Kelemen, D. (1999). Function, goals and intention: childrens teleological reasoning about objects.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 461-467.
Kelly, A. (2003). Theme issue: the role of design in educational research. Educational Researcher,
32(1), 3-4.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach
drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115-142.
Lijnse, P. (1995). Developmental research as a way to an empirically based didactical structure
of science. Science Education, 79(2), 189-199.
Lindwall, O. (2008). Lab work in science education: instruction, inscription, and the practical
achievement of understanding. Ph D thesis. Linkping Studies in Art and Science. No. 426.
Department of Theme research, Linkping.
Lo, M., Marton, F., Pang M., & Pong, W. (2004). Toward a pedagogy of learning. In F. Marton,
& A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.) Classroom discourse and the space of learning. (pp. 189-225). NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect. Science, 134, 1501-1506.
Mheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching learning sequences. Aims and tools for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 515-535.

5(2), 2009

[183]

Clas Olander
Millar, R., Leach, J., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2006). Improving subject teaching - lessons from
research in science education. London and New York: Routledge.
Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead,
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
National Agency of Education (2004). National evaluation of the compulsory school in 2003.
Retrieved June 28, 2009, from www.skolverket.se/sb/d/663/a/2308
National Agency of Education (2000). Compulsory schools syllabuses 2000. Retrieved June 28,
2009, from www3.skolverket.se/ki/eng/comp.pdf
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom.
Buckingham: Open University Press
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-Based Research Methods for Studying Learning in
Context: Introduction, Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199-201.
Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students use of evidence in written explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Settlage, J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: a snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 449-457.
Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between nave and scientific theories of evolution.
Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 170-194
Stearns, S., & Hoekstra, R. (2000). Evolution: an introduction. Oxford University Press.
Tiberghien, A. (2000). Designing teaching situations in the secondary school. In R. Millar, J. Leach
& J. Osborne (Eds), Improving science education. The contribution of research, (pp. 27 - 47).
Buckingham: Open University press.
Thomas, J. (2000). Learning about genes and evolution through formal and informal education.
Studies in Science Education, 35. 59-92.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Wallin, A. (2004). Evolutionsteorin i klassrummet. P vg mot en mnesdidaktisk teori fr undervisning i biologisk evolution. Gteborg studies in educational sciences 212. Gteborg: Acta
Universitatis Gothoburgensis. English summary retrieved June 28, 2009, from http://gupea.
ub.gu.se/dspace/handle/2077/9494
Wallin, A., Hagman, M., & Olander, C. (2001). Teaching and learning about the biological evolution: conceptual understanding before, during and after teaching. In Proceedings of the III
Conference of European Researchers in Didactic of Biology (ERIDOB), (pp.127-139). Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Zetterqvist, A. (1998). Teachers views on their teaching of evolution. In H. Bayrhuber & F. Brinkman (Eds.), What Why How? Research in Didaktik of Biology (pp. 11-20). ERIDOB,
Kiel: IPN.
Zohar, A., & Ginossar, S. (1998). Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and anthropomorphism in
biology education heretical suggestions. Science Education, 82, 679-697.

[184]

5(2), 2009